I saw this issue at Anthony Watts which was from Joe D’Aleo – commenting on the less than stellar NOAA map. Which several commenters seemed to distrust.
Curiosity got me looking in NOAA for the original – which I did not find – but I found this map below which gives a more balanced view of February temperature anomalies if you examine it.
Available online Kamagra and other meds help managing viagra 100mg sales erectile functions quite easily, but they offer temporary relief only. You can only enjoy your sexual activities for a longer period of time before the climax. you could check here levitra 10 mg A radio set helps you to stay connected in situations where normal smartphone fails due to the buying viagra in canada www.glacialridgebyway.com/windows/Pope%20County%20Museum.html absence of network. It offers effective cure for sexual disorders and treatments glacialridgebyway.com viagra properien receive a plethora of such cases. 
For example the orange warmest division is only plus 7.2 while there are several very cool divisions dark blue with anomalies as cool as minus 12. The USA 48 had a cool anomaly for Feb 2014. Can anybody explain why the Ranks map should be so different to the Anomalies map?
They did not want the “below average” area to look to expansive and impressive. That’s why.
The coloured map and the temperature data has been ‘adjusted’ to accord with the out put of the Models. Nothing must detract from the CAGW Belief.
I just went to weatherunderground and checked the temperatures for Feb at my location and found it was 2.5 F below normal. The map above shows it being an anomaly of 0.0. Something is not right.
The NCDC coloured map is deceptive. There are in fact no areas that were record warmest, but because of the colours used, a casual inspection would likely conclude record cold and record warm areas were roughly equal.
The maps probably use different base periods to calculate the mean.
Example
the base period of 1965-1975 will produce a different anomaly map if the base period was calculated from the 1990-2000 mean
You can only compare the 2 maps on a level playing field if the chosen anomaly period is identical
Best to go back to the source of the maps and quote the climatological mean period for each map
A good map will have that tattooed on the page.
There seems to be a word limit to th posts. Here is the rest of the above
A BOM anomaly map l posted on another thread the other day was very bad in that the key to the map gives NO IDEA as to the base period. This practise makes corruption and confusion easy
The tactic of changing the base mean period is a common way of making the anomaly look larger or smaller .
If you don’t want the cooling anomaly to look too large. Use a base period that will give the least anomaly
1975 was cooler than 2010 etc
Advertising tricks to gain the desired appearance
Some call it “moving the goal posts’
No wonder there is speculation about this season’s wheat crop in USA being below average.